GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 332,676
Threads: 115,734
Posts: 2,208,283
Welcome to our newest member, saueljnro9776
» Online Users: 7,484
0 members and 7,484 guests
No Members online
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 05-20-2008, 02:55 PM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudey View Post
Look folks, I didn't say what is or isn't right. I just am saying that you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others. It doesn't matter what the source of those "morals" are...bible, your mother, etc.
I'm totally grunching this total trainwreck of a thread (seriously, can a mod just rename it "lessons in logical fallacies"?), but it seems like we're getting into a cum hoc ergo propter hoc deal here.

That is to say, I agree completely with your first assertion ("you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others") while completely disagreeing with the second ("it doesn't matter what the source of those morals (is)"). In fact, it very much does matter - not only because there are (relatively) universal moral and ethical standards and there are standards from dubious or non-universal sources, but also because there is a stated dissociation from one source of moral relativism in the United States that precludes that from being the sole source of moral authority.

Let's look at it like this, since you keep bringing up the example: universally, barring exceptionally niche elements such as Satanists or whatever, people know that it is unacceptable and immoral (and unethical, whichever term you'd prefer) to kill another person. The reason is because that person has its own rights (which cattle do not share; cattle as we know them would likely be extinct without human intervention, and it is also a universal moral standard to separate people from animals in at least some regard).

This is not a strictly "Christian" moral. However, the overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage advocates openly (and honestly, which I find very respectable) declare that they are relying on a strictly Christian definition of marriage. There is no universal sympathy on this issue, and the relative moral outcry comes from churches (and some synagogues and mosques).

The two are not akin, nor should they be in the eyes of the law - a strict separation of Church and State requires that the state enact laws that utilize a moral authority more universal than any one church (or even any majority set of churches).

It does, indeed, matter which source is used for "moral" lawmaking.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Georgia high court overturns teen's sentence for having sex with minor The1calledTKE News & Politics 18 06-02-2008 01:44 PM
Marriage ZetaXiDelta Greek Life 2 01-18-2008 10:24 PM
Supreme Court of Canada rules in favour of Same Sex Marriage bcdphie News & Politics 9 12-10-2004 10:46 AM
MA court ruling on gay marriage ban...your thoughts? LuaBlanca News & Politics 70 05-17-2004 02:44 PM
Is There a RIGHT age for Marriage? PrettyKitty Zeta Phi Beta 24 06-14-2002 10:01 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.